How power helps your golf game (and it’s not how you think)

Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from Rich Hunt’s 2018 Pro Golf Synopsis, which can be purchased here for $10.99. Stylistic changes were made to the story for online publication.

As a statistical analyst and researcher for Tour pros, caddies and instructors, the most common question I receive is with regards to the importance of power in the game. There is still a strong contingent of golfers that believe that driving distance is the least important metric in the game of golf. I am emphatic when I say that is incorrect.

Research conducted by myself and others has shown that driving distance is one of the more important metrics in the game. Not only have I found this to be the case when studying Tour players, but it applies to the average amateur as well.

In 2013, some friends of mine and I did a study using Trackman and the USGA GHIN to see if there was a correlation between a golfer’s club head speed and their handicap index. There were 137 subjects, ages 15-57 years old that had to have a USGA handicap and have recorded at least 20 scores in the GHIN within the last 12 months. The subjects ranged from PGA Tour players to 25 handicaps.

The findings were than the correlation very strong at +0.91 with a standard deviation of 4.5 mph. Correlation is the a mathematical methodology to determine the strength of a relationship between two variables. The closer the correlation is to 1.0, the stronger the relationship. Therefore, a correlation of +0.91 shows a very strong correlation and it is strong enough to project club head speed based on the golfer’s handicap.

Here is the regression formula that projects the club head speed based on the golfer’s USGA handicap

Here is a table showing the projected club speed based on USGA handicap (note that + handicaps are better-than-scratch golfers)

There has been some confusion from readers in interpreting the data. Understand that this is projecting the club speed and it is not definitive. The projected club speed numbers do not represent the entire population.

The data projects that 68 percent of the population will fall within 1-standard deviation from the projected values. That means that the data projects that 68 percent of the population will fall within +/- 4.5 mph from the projected numbers listed above. 95 percent of the population will fall within 2-standard deviations (+/- 9 mph) of the projected numbers listed above. And 99.7 percent of the population will fall within 3 standard deviations (+/- 13.5 mph) of the projected numbers listed above.

When I posted this table on Twitter, many readers would proclaim that they ‘underachieved’ because their club speed was much higher than the projected numbers based on their handicap. For example, a player that is a -3 handicap is projected to generate 102.3 mph club speed, but generates (or at least claims to) generate 113 mph club speed.

That player has not ‘underachieved’ nor does it mean that the regression analysis is invalid based on their anecdotal evidence. It just means that that they fall outside 95 percent of the projected population of -3 handicaps.

The key to understanding the table and regression analysis is that the study shows that there is a relationship between the two variables, not a perfect 1:1 relationship. And thus, we can use that relationship not only for more accurate projections, but to examine why that relationship exists and what can be done for golfers to use that to their advantage to improve their scores.

For example, a friend of mine is roughly a 20 handicap, but I have clocked him at 124 mph club speed. He never had much in the way of formal instruction and plays about once a month. But he is a 6’6” former college basketball player and competitive softball player. He knows how to do one thing incredibly well in golf; generate speed. It does not mean that speed (power) is any less important. It just means that he is outside 99.7% percent of the population and is an extreme anomaly.

***

One issue with the regression analysis that I posted is that it does not determine why the relationship exists. Do lower handicaps tend to have higher club head speeds because they are utilizing better technique that allows them to generate more speed or does the distance gained actually help the golfer shoot a lower score?

A few years ago, my friend Mark Sweeney from AimPoint Golf found another strong correlation involving distance. This time the correlation was with the length of the average birdie putt for Tour players. The chart looks something like this:

Essentially, the further the player hits the ball off the tee, the more likely their average birdie putt will be shorter in length. Thus, a player that is a lesser skilled putter can sink more putts than superior skilled putters if they are longer off the tee because they are having easier putts to make. I call this The Power to Putting Principle.

For example, Rory McIlroy is one of the longest hitters on Tour and has struggled with the putter in recent years. Brian Gay is one of the shortest hitters on Tour and one of the better putters. Rory may sink more putts in a round because he may have an average birdie putt length of 15-feet while Gay’s average birdie putt length may be at 25-feet. On birdie putts, McIlroy is giving himself putts that have a 22 percent make probability on average compared to Gay having putts with a 10 percent make probability on average. Thus, while Gay is a far superior putter he will not likely make as many putts as McIlroy because Gay’s putts are much more difficult to make.

This is where power provides the greatest advantage to golfers; on the putting greens.

Is there any advantage to being short, but accurate off the tee?

Well, note that the Sweeney study is about the length of the average birdie putt. When a long ball hitter misses the green in regulation, they are more likely to have a longer and more difficult scrambling opportunity. This is because of the times that the bomber misses the fairway by a wide margin and ends up in the trees and has to punch out or they end up in a penalty area.

This is why I advise Tour players that analytics if golf is not a rigid ‘one size fits all’ system. Not only should a golfer accurately determine their strengths and weaknesses and figure out how to utilize them to play the best golf possible, but distance plays a major role in what areas of the game a player needs to focus on. Brian Gay should not try to play Bubba Watson’s game and Bubba Watson should not try to play Jordan Spieth’s game all because their differing lengths off the tee creates different advantages they must exploit and different weaknesses that they must account for.

Applying this to your game

As I mentioned earlier, the Power to Putting Principle states that longer hitters have an advantage on the greens because they are more likely to have short length birdie putts on average than shorter hitters. But shorter hitters have an advantage when the green in regulation is missed.

Thus, shorter hitters need to be more skilled putters to compete with the longer hitters. And longer hitters need to be more skilled with their abilities around the greens in order to convert those up-and-downs like the shorter, but more accurate golfer.

Therefore the best short hitting golfers in the world over the years (Zach Johnson, Brian Gay, Jim Furyk, etc.) have been very good putters. They must be great putters to make up for them having more difficult putts on average than the longer hitters. That is how some of the best long hitters in the world tend to still play great golf despite putting poorly (i.e. Dustin Johnson, Rory McIlroy, Bubba Watson).

But we do see that the long hitters tend to play their best golf when their short game around the green and/or their putting improves.

The misconception from the press and fans becomes that because a bomber improved so much in their putting and/or short game around the green that is what really matters most in golf. The reality is completely different from perception though. They are great players and better than the rest of the world because of their ballstriking and their power. It’s just that when they improve their putting and short game around the green, now they become the very best of the best.

Bubba Watson isn’t ranked #17 in the world due to his short game around the green (ranked 174th last season) and putting (ranked 108th last season). However, if he starts to dominate the Tour and get into the top-10 it is very likely that he will have improved upon those areas and essentially have little in the way of flaws in his game.

How does this apply to the 10-handicap golfer?

The projected club speed of a 10-handicap golfer using my regression analysis is 92.6 mph. If a golfer is a legitimate 10-handicap golfer and generates 85 mph they are likely more accurate off the tee and a better putter than the other 10-handicap golfer that generates 93 mph of speed.

With any golfer, an increase in club speed is likely to improve their handicap. However, if the golfer just wants to compete with other 10-handicaps without working on their golf swing, it is very important that he hit the ball more accurately than his competitors and that he will need to be more skilled with the putter.

If the golfer is a 10-handicap and generates 100 mph of club speed with the driver, they most likely are less accurate off the tee and worse putters than their fellow 10-handicap golfers. However, the key here is that the 100-mph golfer has more options than the 85-mph golfer. The 100-mph golfer can beat out his fellow 10-handicappers by hitting the ball more accurately or by improving their short game around the green to make up for having more difficult scramble opportunities or they can improve their putting.

In a previous example, I showed why Brian Gay has to be more skilled of a putter to sink more putts than Bubba Watson. Gay hits it shorter and has longer (and thus more difficult) putts to make than Watson. But, what if Bubba was equally as skilled or more skilled than Gay with the putter?

You would have an equally skilled or more skilled putter that is putting from more makeable distances. This is why long hitters are so dangerous. If they can keep the ball out of trouble and get four good days with the putter, they are going to contend. And the same applies with amateurs.

Developing young golfers

I am frequently asked by coaches of junior golfers and colleges that have Professional Golf Management programs about what their golfers should focus on developing in their golf game.

My answer is ‘Power and Putting.’

It may sound like a cliché with all the discussion with regards to how the Tour is becoming about who can hit it the longest, but my opinion is based on the math and the historical data with regards to the subject.

If hitting it further is likely to leave you with more makeable birdie putts and the golfer is a great putter, then it is a scenario where a great putter has easier putts to make and that equates to the lowest scores.

Yes, every shot does count. Long approach shots are certainly important and the same with mid-length approach shots. The same goes for having a respectable amount of accuracy and precision. And you do lose strokes if your short game around the green stinks to high heaven. But most players that hit it long have a high level of competence as a golfer. And those that can putt well along with it are at an enormous advantage.

And if I were to just name players that hit the ball long (175+ mph ball speed) and putted great for a significant length of time with no regards to the rest of the game, the players I come up with are:

Tiger Woods

Phil Mickelson

Brooks Koepka

Jason Day

Rickie Fowler

Paul Casey

Jimmy Walker

And those are the players that I could measure with ShotLink. While it is speculation, players off the top of my head that were both very long and great putters pre-ShotLink were:

Bobby Jones

Arnold Palmer

Jack Nicklaus

Tom Watson

Seve Ballesteros

There was more to their games than hitting it long and putting well. But, the math behind hitting it long and putting well is why it was not a coincidence that they were also some of the greatest players to have ever played the game.

Richie Hunt is a statistician whose clients include PGA Tour players, their caddies and instructors in order to more accurately assess their games. He is also the author of the recently published e-book, 2018 Pro Golf Synopsis; the Moneyball Approach to the Game of Golf. He can be reached at ProGolfSynopsis@yahoo.com or on Twitter @Richie3Jack.
GolfWRX Writer of the Month: March 2014
Purchase 2017 Pro Golf Synopsis E-book for $10

11 Comments

11 Comments

Tom54

Jan 30, 2019 at 5:18 pm

I get the point about power is definitely an advantage over those who do not. I’ve always argued with a buddy of mine that power is not the end all when it comes to advantages. For example,if he pushes a tee ball off line in the same vicinity as mine,his will stay in the rough. Since I’m much longer,mine will be deep in the trees. I just think accuracy should weigh in more when just assuming the power hitter will always have shorter birdie putts.

Thank you for validating what I suspected. I’m the 8-9 capper that doesnt hit it long, I putt pretty well and I have a good short game. I keep the ball in play but don’t make a ton of birdies. Buddies of mine look like they might dominate me during a round, but at the end of the day I often have a lower score. My handicap used to be about 3 shots lower before I injured my back, biggest difference is a loss of speed. While I make a lot of pars and bogeys, they make more birdies, about the same amount of pars and a lot more “others”

now if I could just get my bad back in order, I might regain some of my speed…..

But Tiger’s best shot was the second shot to the green. As Richie indicated, having a shorter putt is a great advantage. The advantage of a longer drive is that you’re using a shorter club for your shot to the green.

Another great article Rich. With you being a statistician there’s nothing you say or do that cannot be disputed. That’s why I don’t understand why anyone would “ shank” any of your articles. They are pure analytical gold. I think many people cannot understand the pure logic that statistics bring. Or took the time and energy to read it. Like I said, pure gold.

Thanks for the kind words. I will say that with most statistical analysis and research the data is compiled and then there is an interpretation of the data. The interpretation of the data can be more up for debate.

The problem is that most non-statisticians are arguing their own opinion that is based on their own, long held belief system instead of actually debating the interpretation of the data.

An important way Tiger Woods changed professional golf

Tiger Woods is, without a doubt, one of the most influential players in the history of golf. 80 tour wins, 14 majors (10 of them before he was 30) are all incredible numbers.

But this article is not about his amazing stats.

Today, I want to talk about one thing he has done for the game off the course. Most of us remember the Nike commercial with all the little kids saying “I am Tiger Woods.” What we didn’t realize at the time was that an entire generation of young players were growing up idolizing Tiger.

While other kids may have had posters of Michael Jordan or Troy Aikman on their walls, these kids had posters of Tiger. They watched his every move. They all had black shorts or pants with a red shirt to wear on Sunday. They all wanted to be him. Some of those kids were Jason Day, Brooks Koepka, Tony Finau, Rory Mcllroy, and Lexi Thompson. They watched him and were amazed at how dominate he was and wanted to be like him.

As these kids grew up, they understood that the physical shape that Tiger always seemed to be in played a key role in how many tournaments he won and how, even on bad days when his skills seemed to take a day or two off, his physical conditioning got him through it. The young people watched him and started to include physical conditioning in their game. They were spending time in the gym and working with personal trainers. They still worked with swing coaches and in most cases played NCAA golf but the difference in their game was the work they did without a club in their hand.

So what is it that gives these players an edge? Is it because they are stronger? Maybe. Is it because they hit the ball further? No, because John Daly could bomb the driver but was in no way the most dominate player of his day. The key here is endurance. Because of the incredible shape these players keep themselves in, they can walk 72 holes of golf in brutally hot conditions and still have their A games on Sunday.

This is exactly what helped Tiger to be so good his competition couldn’t keep up with him and just faded down the leaderboard. Playing Tiger in his prime meant you had to have your entire game at its best and hope he missed a few shots or got sick. If he didn’t he was going to sneak up on you and pounce or he was already so far ahead that you were in a race for second place.

Today’s players have swing coaches and athletic trainers they work closely with nutrition experts and monitor everything they put into their bodies. These are the type of things we historically have expected to see from top NFL, NHL and NBA players, not golfers. This is the difference that Tiger has made and this may be the thing that impacts golf for decades to come. He has made golf into a sport that requires you to be in the best shape of your life if you want to play at the highest levels. It is also exactly what the game needed.

I can’t imagine the players of 25 years ago wearing golf shirts that were designed to be skin tight. I never would have believed seeing players with biceps bigger than some peoples legs (Brooks Koepka) but today it’s a reality. Most of the top players on both the PGA and LPGA are in great shape and reap the benefits of it on the 18th green on Sunday. Tiger will be remembered as an amazing player with amazing numbers. He is one of just a few players whose galleries could rival that of small cities. He is also a player that changed the way a generation of greats now play the game.

Hidden Gem of the Day: WildHorse Golf Club in Gothenburg, Nebraska

These aren’t the traditional “top-100” golf courses in America, or the ultra-private golf clubs you can’t get onto. These are the hidden gems; they’re accessible to the public, they cost less than $50, but they’re unique, beautiful and fun to play in their own right. We recently asked our GolfWRX Members to help us find these “hidden gems.” We’re treating this as a bucket list of golf courses to play across the country, and the world. If you have a personal favorite hidden gem, submit it here!

Today’s Hidden Gem of the Day was submitted by GolfWRX member Gizmogolf, who takes us to WildHorse Golf Club in Gothenburg, Nebraska. In Gizmogolf’s description of the course, he singles out the fast greens as being the main attraction for a visit to this track.

“Nearly as good as Sand Hills. Less isolated just off I-80. Best greens you’ll ever play–lightning fast.”

According to WildHorse Golf Club’s website, walking 18 holes during the week will set you back $51.50, while the rate rises to $61.50 should you want to play on the weekend.

TG2: Do the new USGA rules even matter?

Knudson and Rob discuss the new USGA rules for 2019, wondering if they will make any difference at all. Dropping from the knee, time to find your ball, ground in the hazard, and stroke/distance are all talked about.